State v. Connor

• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SOMMERVILLE, J.
• Citation: State v. Connor, 142 La. 631, 77 So. 482 (La. 1917)
• Decision Date: 26 November 1917
• Docket Number: 22860
• Parties: STATE v. CONNOR

77 So. 482

142 La. 631

STATE v. CONNOR

No. 22860

Supreme Court of Louisiana

November 26, 1917

Rehearing Denied January 3, 1918

SYLLABUS

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A remark by the district attorney, in the course of his argument before the jury which is not prejudicial to the accused is not reversible error.

A wrong interpretation of a remark of the district attorney by counsel for the accused, to the effect that 'this is a reference to the accused not taking the witness stand and testifying,' cannot be charged to the district attorney who had not said or intimated that the accused had not taken the witness stand.

O'Niell, J., dissenting.

James R. Parkerson, of New Orleans, for appellant.

A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., and Percy Saint, Dist. Atty., of Franklin (Vernon A. Coco, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.

O'NIELL, J., dissents. LECHE, J., takes no part, not having heard the argument.

OPINION

SOMMERVILLE, J.

Jack Connor and Harry Johnson were jointly charged with larceny. Johnson moved for a severance, which was granted. Connor was tried and convicted, and he has appealed.

Connor moved to quash the jury venire on the ground that the Act numbered 135, 1898, [77 So. 483] p. 216, is unconstitutional, being in conflict with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States; in that it delegates to the jury commissioners discriminatory power in selecting jurors; that the jurors were selected from the pollbooks of the parish of St. Mary, which books contained the names of less than one-half of the male population of the parish between the ages of 21 and 60; that the drawing of the jury from the pollbooks is in conflict with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments for the reason that the majority of the male citizens between 21 and 60, in the parish, are thereby disqualified and prohibited from serving on juries.

Other grounds are assigned on the brief, viz.: That more than 30 days elapsed after the issuance of the order for drawing the jury and the convening of the jury commission, and that the list of jurors drawn should have been published for 30 days.

As these last two points do not form parts of the motion to quash filed in this case they will not be considered.

An examination of Act 135 does not show that discriminatory powers are therein given to the commissioners in drawing juries; and no such powers have been pointed out by defendant. The act directs the commissioners to select the names of 300 jurors 'from the persons qualified under this act to serve as jurors for their respective parishes'; and the act further provides:

'That the qualifications of a juror to serve in any of the courts of this state shall be as follows: To be a citizen of the United States and of this state, a bona fide male resident of the parish in and for which the court is holden for one year next preceding such service; not under interdiction; or charged with any crime or offense; or convicted at any time of any crime or offense punishable by hard labor, unless he has been pardoned; and to be a competent and intelligent person of full age having capacity to serve as a juror to try and determine both civil and criminal cases; provided, that there shall be no distinction made on account of race, color or previous condition.'

We fail to discover any discriminatory powers granted in the act to the jury commissioners in drawing juries, or how the act conflicts in any way with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

It is said that the commissioners selected the list of jurors from the pollbooks of the parish, and, as the pollbooks contain the names of less than one-half of the male population of the parish between 21 and 60 years of age, that more than one-half of such male population of the parish is disqualified and prohibited from serving on the juries by such action on the part of the commissioners.

The record contains no evidence whatever as to the process of selecting the jurors which served at the term of court when defendant was tried. It is not shown whether the commission used the pollbooks of the parish or not, or whether all persons qualified to serve as jurors were registered or not. No attempt to show any irregularity or discrimination on the part of the commissioners in drawing the jury was made. The motion to quash was properly overruled.

It has been held that, where it has not been shown that the list of registered voters did not contain the names of all persons qualified to serve as jurors, the objection to the use of pollbooks by the jury commissioners must fail (State v. Thomas, 35 La.Ann. 24; Marr's Revised Statutes, p. 1374), and that the law does not direct from what source the jury commission shall seek for qualified jurors (State v. Green, 43 La.Ann. 403, 9 So. 42; Marr's Revised Statutes, p. 1374).

The several bills of exceptions taken to remarks made by the district attorney in the course of his argument to the jury which were charged to be prejudicial to the accused, cused, and to constitute reversible error, will be considered together.

It appears from the bills of exceptions and the...